DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 1/11/2022. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statements
3. The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 2/19/2025 and 10/27/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite various limitations that, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. a client device), can be performed in the human mind or with simple tools. The claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover the concept of receiving data, analyzing the received data, generating keywords with the data, and then generating a sentence based on the keywords (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recite elements in the form of “a processor” and “memory.” These elements are used to perform the claimed methods and steps and are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not include subject matter that could not be performed by a human, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the generic computing elements to perform the claimed elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, these claims further limit the elements of claims 1 and 11 by reciting the plurality of data comprises a plurality of position data, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to determine the event related to the user by: determining first position data among the plurality of position data; and determining the similarity of the plurality of data based on a distance value between the first position data and second position data that is obtained after the first position data. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by simple tools. Similar to claim 1 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 3 and 13 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, these claims further limit the elements of claims 1 and 11 by reciting the plurality of data comprises a plurality of movement data, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the electronic device to determine the event related to the user by determining the similarity of the plurality of data based on a period in which the plurality of movement data is sustained. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by simple tools. Similar to claim 1 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 4 and 14 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, these claims further limit the elements of claims 1 and 11 by reciting the plurality of data related to the daily life of the user comprises at least one of location data, movement data, weather data, temperature data, date data, day data, time data, and photo data, and wherein the plurality of keywords comprise at least one of a location keyword corresponding to the location data, a movement keyword corresponding to the movement data, a weather keyword corresponding to the weather data, a temperature keyword corresponding to the temperature data, a date keyword corresponding to the date data, a day keyword corresponding to the day data, a time keyword corresponding to the time data, and a photo keyword corresponding to the photo data. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by simple tools. Similar to claim 1 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 5 and 15 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, these claims further limit the elements of claims 1 and 11 by reciting receive a user input corresponding to at least one of the plurality of keywords; change at least one of the plurality of keywords based on the user input; and based on the at least one of the plurality of keywords that are changed, generate the at least one sentence corresponding to the event related to the user. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by simple tools. Similar to claim 1 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 6 and 16 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, these claims further limit the elements of claims 1 and 11 by reciting receive a user input corresponding to the at least one sentence; and change the at least one sentence based on the user input. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by simple tools. Similar to claim 1 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 7 and 17 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, these claims further limit the elements of claims 1 and 11 by reciting based on the user input being received, analyzing a component of the at least one sentence corresponding to the user input; and changing the at least one sentence corresponding to the event related to the user based on the analyzed component and the plurality of keywords. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by simple tools. Similar to claim 1 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 8 and 18 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, these claims further limit the elements of claims 1 and 11 by reciting a display, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the electronic device to display, on the display, at least one of the plurality of data, the plurality of keywords, or the at least one sentence corresponding to the event related to the user. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by simple tools. Similar to claim 1 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 9 and 19 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, this claim further limit the elements of claim 1 by reciting determine a number of keywords that are the same among the plurality of keywords; and obtain a keyword statistic based on the determined number of keywords. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by simple tools. Similar to claim 1 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
6. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Ap. Pub. No. 20110264691 (Migita et al., hereinafter “Mig,” cited in IDS of 2/19/2025) in view of U.S. Pat. Ap. Pub. No. 20220321662 (Maskeri et al., hereinafter “Mas”).
With regard to Claim 1, Mig describes:
“An electronic device, comprising:
at least one sensor; (Paragraph 58 describes a motion and location sensor.)
memory storing instructions; and (Paragraph 58 describes memory.)
at least one processor, (Paragraph 58 describes a CPU.)
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to:
obtain a plurality of data related to a daily life of a user based on a sensing value obtained from the at least one sensor; (Paragraph 91 describes that data related to the user’s life is generated based on the location data.)
[[based on a similarity of the plurality of data,]] determine an event related to the user and corresponding to at least one data of the plurality of data; (Paragraph 91 describes that events such as drives in a vehicle or bike rides can be determined based on the sensor data.)
based on the plurality of data, determine a plurality of keywords related to the event related to the user; and (Paragraph 91 describes that keywords such as “still,” “jumping,” or “running” can be determined based on the sensor data. Paragraph 152 also describes that keywords are generated based on the sensor data.)
based on the plurality of keywords, generate at least one sentence corresponding to the event related to the user. (Paragraph 187 describes that a sentence is generated to provide to the user based on the keywords.)
Mig does not explicitly describe that determining the event is based on a similarity of the plurality of data.
However, paragraph 38 of Mas describes that an event can be determined based on a similarity evaluation of location data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the similarity determination as described by Mas into the system of Mig to recognize events based on previous events, as described in paragraph 38 of Mas.
With respect to Claim 2, Mig does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Mas describes “determine the similarity of the plurality of data based on an artificial intelligence (AI) model, wherein the Al model comprises at least one of a machine learning algorithm, a neural network algorithm, a gene algorithm, a deep learning algorithm, and a classification algorithm.” Paragraph 25 describes that the event determination algorithm may be a deep neural network (a deep learning algorithm.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the AI similarity determination as described by Mas into the system of Mig to allow the algorithm to learn based on previous events, as described in paragraph 25 of Mas.
With respect to Claim 3, Mig describes “the plurality of data comprises a plurality of position data, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to determine the event related to the user by: determining first position data among the plurality of position data.” Paragraph 58 describes that the sensor data may be GPS location data taken over time.
Mig does not explicitly describe “determining the similarity of the plurality of data based on a distance value between the first position data and second position data that is obtained after the first position data.” However, paragraph 38 of Mas describes that an event can be determined based on a similarity evaluation of location data compared to previously recorded data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the similarity determination as described by Mas into the system of Mig to recognize events based on previous events, as described in paragraph 38 of Mas.
With respect to Claim 4, Mig describes “the plurality of data comprises a plurality of movement data.” Paragraph 58 describes that the sensor data may be accelerometer and gyro movement data taken over time.
Mig does not explicitly describe “determine the event related to the user by determining the similarity of the plurality of data based on a period in which the plurality of movement data is sustained.” However, paragraph 38 of Mas describes that an event can be determined based on a similarity evaluation of location data compared to previously recorded data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the similarity determination as described by Mas into the system of Mig to recognize events based on previous events, as described in paragraph 38 of Mas.
With respect to Claim 5, Mig describes “the plurality of data related to the daily life of the user comprises at least one of location data, movement data, weather data, temperature data, date data, day data, time data, and photo data, and (Paragraph 58 describes that the data can be GPS location data.)
wherein the plurality of keywords comprise at least one of a location keyword corresponding to the location data, a movement keyword corresponding to the movement data, a weather keyword corresponding to the weather data, a temperature keyword corresponding to the temperature data, a date keyword corresponding to the date data, a day keyword corresponding to the day data, a time keyword corresponding to the time data, and a photo keyword corresponding to the photo data. (Paragraph 91 describes that keywords such as “still,” “jumping,” or “running” can be determined based on the sensor data.)
With respect to Claim 7, Mig describes “receive a user input corresponding to the at least one sentence; and change the at least one sentence based on the user input.” Paragraph 87 describes that the user can browse through the sentences, which allows them to change the sentence based on their input.
With respect to Claim 8, Mig describes “based on the user input being received, analyzing a component of the at least one sentence corresponding to the user input; and changing the at least one sentence corresponding to the event related to the user based on the analyzed component and the plurality of keywords.” Paragraph 87 describes that the user can browse through the sentences, which allows them to change the sentence based on their input. The device would analyze the user command after browsing, and thus the sentence would be changed based on the user browsing input.
With respect to Claim 9, Mig describes “a display, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the electronic device to display, on the display, at least one of the plurality of data, the plurality of keywords, or the at least one sentence corresponding to the event related to the user.” Paragraph 201 describes that the device includes a display that displays the generated sentence.
With respect to Claims 11-15 and 17-19, method Claim 11 and device Claim 1 are related as a device programmed to perform the same method, with each claimed device function corresponding to each claimed method step. Accordingly, Claims 11-15 and 17-19 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to Claims 1-5 and 7-9.
With respect to Claim 20, medium Claim 20 and device Claim 1 are related as a device programmed to perform the same method as the medium perform, with each claimed device function corresponding to each claimed medium step. Accordingly, Claim 20 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to Claim 1.
7. Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Mig in view of Mas and further in view of U.S. Pat. Ap. Pub. No. 20180293215 (Jang).
With regard to Claim 6, Mig in view of Mas does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Jang describes “receive a user input corresponding to at least one of the plurality of keywords; change at least one of the plurality of keywords based on the user input; and based on the at least one of the plurality of keywords that are changed, generate the at least one sentence corresponding to the event related to the user.” Paragraph 13 describes that keywords determined by a device can be modified based on user input. Paragraph 13 further describes that the modified keywords are include in the keyword set for the processing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the keyword modification as described by Jang into the system of Mig in view of Mas to allow the user to approve the keywords, as described in paragraphs 86 and 87 of Jang.
With respect to Claim 16, method Claim 11 and device Claim 1 are related as a device programmed to perform the same method, with each claimed device function corresponding to each claimed method step. Accordingly, Claim 16 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to Claim 6.
8. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Mig in view of Mas and further in view of U.S. Pat. Ap. Pub. No. 20190243642 (Bahrami et al, hereinafter “Bah”).
With regard to Claim 10, Mig in view of Mas does not explicitly describe this subject matter. However, Bah describes “determine a number of keywords that are the same among the plurality of keywords; and obtain a keyword statistic based on the determined number of keywords.” Paragraph 24 of Bah describes that a number of each type of keyword is determined by the device. These keyword totals are keyword statistics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the keyword statistics as described by Bah into the system of Mig in view of Mas to allow for comparisons between the number of each different keyword, as described in paragraph 24 of Bah.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. Ap. Pub. No. 20240380722 (Maeda et al.) also describes using keywords for sentence analysis.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD TRACY whose telephone number is (571)272-8332. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached on 571-272-7453. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDWARD TRACY JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights